Identity Politics Remains a Political Loser

It's Kim Strassel.

I love this lady!

At WSJ, "Stay Woke, Drop Out: In its wake, identity politics leaves a trail of failed Democratic candidates":

In its wake, identity politics leaves a trail of failed Democratic candidates, writes @KimStrassel https://t.co/auu0EMfEGU via @WSJ

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) January 17, 2020

To paraphrase Santayana, Democrats who refuse to acknowledge Hillary Clinton’s failures in the 2016 election were always doomed to repeat them. Why is their primary field littered with the failed bids of woke candidates? Why is #WarrenIsASnake trending on Twitter? Because identity politics remains a political loser.

That’s the takeaway from the rapidly narrowing Democratic field, and smart liberals warned of it after 2016. Mark Lilla, writing in the New York Times, faulted Mrs. Clinton for molding her campaign around “the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, LGBT and women voters at every stop.” Successful politics, he noted, is always rooted in visions of “shared destiny.”

Progressives heaped scorn on Mr. Lilla—one compared him to David Duke—and doubled down on identity politics. Nearly every flashpoint in this Democratic race has centered on racism, sexism or classism. Nearly every practitioner of that factionalist strategy has exited the race. Mr. Lilla is surely open to apologies.

Kamala Harris created the first big viral moment when she tore into Joe Biden, absolving him of being a “racist” even as she accused him of working with segregationists to oppose school busing. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand didn’t hold the race card but ran a campaign about “women’s equality,” attacking any Democrat who didn’t measure to her standards on abortion, child care and violence against women.

Sen. Cory Booker campaigned relentlessly on “systemic racism” and “social justice,” blasting Mr. Biden for his work on the 1994 crime bill and warning the nation of an “all-out assault” on black voting rights in 2020. Beto O’Rourke felt the need to make up for his own whiteness by going all in on reparations for slavery. Julián Castro built his run on complaints about “discriminatory housing policy,” injustices to transgender and indigenous women, and threats to marginalized communities.

Which bring us to Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to rescue her campaign with a Hail Mary appeal to “sexism.” Her campaign leaked in the run-up to Tuesday’s debate the claim that Mr. Sanders, in a private 2018 meeting, told her he didn’t believe a woman could win the presidency. Mr. Sanders denied it. When the inevitable CNN question came Tuesday night, Ms. Warren played the victim and rolled out a rehearsed statistic about the election failure rate of the men on stage. She praised the Democratic Party for having “stepped up” to elect a Catholic president in 1960 and a black one in 2008 and suggested it should do the same for a female candidate today. Sen. Amy Klobuchar cheered her on.

This is the politics of exclusion—and it explains why a field that began as the most diverse in Democratic history is now coming down to a competition between two old white men. Candidates who speak primarily to subsections of the country are by necessity excluding everybody else. All voters want to know what a candidate is going to do specifically for them, and for the country as a whole. And while many voters view issues in a moral context, few voters feel a moral imperative to vote for candidates solely because they are black, or female, or gay. It’s an unpersuasive argument.

Identity politics is also by necessity vote-losing, because it requires accusations. Ms. Warren is getting blowback now after implying that Mr. Sanders is a misogynist, and calling him a liar. Sanders supporters are lacing Ms. Warren on social media with snake emojis and declaring a #NeverWarren campaign. Even if she stages a comeback, she’s alienated a key base of support.

Precisely because Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders don’t have easy identity-politics cards to play, they’ve focused on broader themes. Yes, they give shout-outs to core liberal constituencies, but Mr. Biden’s consistent argument is that he is the only one qualified to beat Mr. Trump, while Mr. Sanders’s is that America needs to overhaul its economic system. Those are positions around which greater numbers of Democrats can unify...

More.

Bernie Sanders Is a Hardline Communist

[Re-upping this piece from almost exactly four years ago, so hilarious.]

From Paul Sperry, at the New York Post, "Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist":

As polls tighten and self-described socialist Bernie Sanders looks more like a serious contender than a novelty candidate for president, the liberal media elite have suddenly stopped calling him socialist. He’s now cleaned-up as a “progressive” or “pragmatist.”

But he’s not even a socialist. He’s a communist.

Mainstreaming Sanders requires whitewashing his radical pro-Communist past. It won’t be easy to do.

If Sanders were vying for a Cabinet post, he’d never pass an FBI background check. There’d be too many subversive red flags popping up in his file. He was a Communist collaborator during the height of the Cold War.

Rewind to 1964.

While attending the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

After graduating with a political-science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People’s History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as “America’s greatest Marxist.”

****

Sanders still hangs a portrait of Debs on the wall in his Senate office.

In the early ’70s, Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies.

After failed runs for Congress, Sanders in 1981 managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls and raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts. Local small businesses distributed fliers complaining their new mayor “does not believe in free enterprise.”

His radical activities didn’t stop at the ­water’s edge.

Sanders took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua, where the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. He called it a “heroic revolution.” Undermining anti-communist US policy, Sanders denounced the Reagan administration’s backing of the Contra rebels in a letter to the Sandinistas.

His betrayal did not end there. Sanders lobbied the White House to stop the proxy war and even tried to broker a peace deal. He adopted Managua as a sister city and invited Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega to visit the US. He exalted Ortega as “an impressive guy,” while attacking President Reagan.

“The Sandinista government has more support among the Nicaraguan people — substantially more support — than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” Sanders told Vermont government-access TV in 1985.

Sanders also adopted a Soviet sister city outside Moscow and honeymooned with his second wife in the USSR. He put up a Soviet flag in his office, shocking even the Birkenstock-wearing local liberals. At the time, the Evil Empire was on the march around the world, and threatening the US with nuclear annihilation.

Then, in 1989, as the West was on the verge of winning the Cold War, Sanders addressed the national conference of the US Peace Council — a known front for the Communist Party USA, whose members swore an oath not only to the Soviet Union but to “the triumph of Soviet power in the US.”

Today, Sanders wants to bring what he admired in the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua and other communist states to America.

For starters, he proposes completely nationalizing our health-care system and putting private health insurance and drug companies “out of business.” He also wants to break up “big banks” and control the energy industry, while providing “free” college tuition, a “living wage” and guaranteed homeownership and jobs through massive public works projects. Price tag: $18 trillion.

Who will pay for it all? You will. Sanders plans to not only soak the rich with a 90%-plus tax rate, while charging Wall Street a “speculation tax,” but hit every American with a “global-warming tax.”

Of course, even that wouldn’t cover the cost of his communist schemes; a President Sanders would eventually soak the middle class he claims to champion. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?

Still more.

Frankly, all of this is public information.

Folks should read the Bernie Sanders entry at Discover the Networks. Diehard Communist is right.

Women Surviving in Trump's White House

A good piece, at Politico, "In Trump's WhiteHouse, the women are the survivors."

President Trump's War Against the Elites

I still don't think MSM types are getting it. It's not just President Trump. We're in a new age. A totally new era. Regular folks don't even care if you slam them for rejecting "the experts." Not a whit. The so-called experts are mostly leftists and almost always wrong.

Be that as it may, see Cathleen Decker, at LAT, "Analysis: Trump's war against elites and expertise":

When President Trump campaigned this spring at the Hermitage, the home of Andrew Jackson, one part of his predecessor’s approach got a special endorsement.

“It was during the Revolution that Jackson first confronted and defied an arrogant elite. Does that sound familiar?" Trump asked to laughs from his audience.

When Trump ally and National Rifle Assn. President Wayne LaPierre teed off six weeks later on America’s greatest domestic threats, he cited not homegrown terrorists but what he termed “the three most dangerous voices in America: academic elites, political elites, and media elites.”

The rhetoric against elites came from two men who would seem to be card-carrying members of the club: LaPierre made more than $5 million in 2015, the most recent year for which his compensation was publicly released. Trump lived before his inauguration in a gold-plated home in the sky above New York’s Fifth Avenue, a billionaire’s luxurious domain.

Yet for Trump and his allies, a war on elites has been central to the campaign which put him in the presidency and has maintained the loyalty of his core voters. Trump has taken particular aim at entities that could counter his power, which has helped stoke the ardor of his political backers.

Among his targets so far: the government’s intelligence agencies, the media, foreign allies, the Department of Justice, establishment politicians, scientists and the Congressional Budget Office. The last has played a large role in raising questions about Republican proposals to repeal and replace Obamacare, leading to a furious White House assault on its competence.

Trump has refused to accept the judgment of intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. He has alleged, without proof and contrary to both Democratic and Republican officials in key states, that millions of illegal voters cast ballots last year. He has blamed vaccines for autism, despite the scientific debunking of that notion.

Excoriating elites “is classic populist language,” said Yale historian Beverly Gage. “Trump has taken it to a whole new level by not only attacking clueless elites but the entire idea of expertise.”

To voters listening for them, Trump’s anti-elitism signals have blared. As telling as his political and policy postures is his language — who else but Trump would angrily call his predecessor’s signature program “a big fat ugly lie” — and a perpetual sense of victimization.

“He’s a billionaire, and therefore a member of a certain type of elites,” Gage said. “But he’s also the guy from Queens rebelling against the know-it-all smarty pantses from Manhattan.”

Trump has used both specific insults and the specter of powerful and mysterious external forces — he often describes them as an undefined “they” — arrayed against common Americans, with him as chief defender...

See what I mean? This piece makes some good points, but it's otherwise dripping with disdain.

I don't know if Trump can be reelected again. The left will mount an all-out war on him and everything he stands for in 2020. But whatever happens, we're at the point of no return. Too much has changed. I'd say it's like a cultural cold war, and it's not neatly divided into "left and right." The people vs. the establishment is more like it, and perhaps only Bernie Sanders has the proper sense of it among folks on the Democrat side. The culture war, things like transgenders in the military, also plays large. I mean who else but leftist establishment elites would think this a good idea? And rejection of science? Only leftists reject science to push a degenerate socio-political agenda. It's disgusting.

So, if anyone is ready and willing to stand up to the left's warmongering political onslaught come 2020, it's The Donald.

More at the link, FWIW.

Hillary Clinton Breaks Out Fake Southern Accent in South Carolina

Oh brother.

Michelle Malkin hammers Hillary's fake accent, on Twitter.

And watch, "Hillary Clinton deploys southern accent in South Carolina."

Hillary Addresses 'Softening Support Among Women and Almost No Support Among Millennials...' (VIDEO)

Nancy Cordes reports, for CBS Evening News, "Clinton dealing with lack of young supporters."

New Hampshire Exit Polls Reveal Hillary Clinton Electoral Weaknesses

Following-up from yesterday, "The Hillary Clinton Campaign Implosion."

At the Los Angeles Times, "New Hampshire exit polls display vulnerabilities for Hillary Clinton":

Hillary Clinton's bracing 22-point defeat in New Hampshire came at the hands of voters who seemed to reject not so much her policies, but Clinton herself — making her rebound all the more complicated unless the state proves to be an outlier.

That verdict comes through clearly in the exit poll of New Hampshire’s Democratic primary voters. Just over a third of them cited honesty and trustworthiness as the most important attribute for the next president, and Clinton’s opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, won those voters 91% to 5%. Asked if one candidate or both shared their values, a third said only Sanders did, and he won those voters 97% to 2%.

The repudiation was across the board. Sanders won almost all categories of voters, including women. Clinton had made them a specific target, but Sanders won women's votes by 11 points.

New Hampshire is almost wholly white, more liberal and less religious than most states, which may make the defeat here a blip when the election season is concluded. But the sharp divisions evident Tuesday suggest trouble ahead for the national front-runner.

As the campaign moves into more diverse states, one big question will be whether African American and Latino voters decide by virtue of race and ethnicity or age. If minority voters form a bloc, Clinton’s strength in states like South Carolina and Nevada is assured. But if young minority voters break away from their elders to back Sanders, Clinton’s advantage would be diminished.

New Hampshire lacks enough minority voters to draw any conclusions about the impact of race and youth. But as in Iowa, young voters overall proved to be a potent army for Sanders. Among those aged 30 and under, he won more than 4-in-5 votes. The only age category that Clinton won was voters 65 and older, 55% of whom supported her.

In crafting his victory, the Vermont senator accomplished something remarkable. Most Democratic insurgent campaigns in recent elections, dating back to Sen. Gary Hart in 1984, have attracted upscale voters and not those lower on the economic ladder. Sanders reversed that as he became the first Democratic challenger to win here since Hart upset former Vice President Walter Mondale that year.

Among those making $50,000 a year or less, Sanders beat Clinton 2-1. He also defeated Clinton among voters without a college degree, by 36 points.

Those lower-income, less-educated voters formed the backbone of Clinton’s 2008 campaign, giving her advantages that kept the race going for months against then-Sen. Barack Obama, who had a coalition of black voters and upscale whites. That year, among New Hampshire voters making less than $50,000, Clinton defeated Obama 47% to 32% in a multicandidate race.

New Hampshire’s voting populace is young and extremely mobile, a circumstance that benefited Sanders. About 30% of voters were either not old enough to vote or were not residents the last time Clinton ran in a primary here. In that way, however, New Hampshire is similar to states like California, where young and new voters abound, even if many of them don’t register or vote regularly...

More.

Christie and Fiorina Quit GOP Presidential Race

Christie doesn't surprise me, but Fiorina said she'd stay in the race all the way to the convention. She must be strapped for cash, and after such a promising surge for a while last year.

At the New York Times, via Memeorandum, "Chris Christie Drops Out of Race After New Hampshire Flop."

And at Politico, "Carly Fiorina quits 2016 race."

'Ever since it delivered a psychological victory by giving an unexpectedly strong finish to Eugene McCarthy against incumbent President Lyndon Johnson in 1968, thereby delivering the first ballot-box expression of Americans’ angst over the Vietnam war, New Hampshire’s primary has been something of a political canary in the nation’s mine shaft...'

This is an excellent piece, from Kathy Kiely, at USA Today, "Trump, Sanders wins 30 years in the making."

Republican Presidential Campaign Heads to South Carolina, With No Clear Republican Challenge to Donald Trump

Lindsey Graham is on Fox with Bill Hemmer right now, talking about South Carolina, and calling Donald Trump "an absolute disaster for the Republican Party."

Blah, blah.

Perhaps the voters down there disagree.

And Graham's shilling for Jeb, which about makes me puke.

At the New York Times, "Race Goes to South Carolina, With No Clear Republican Threat to Trump":

COLUMBIA, S.C. — With Donald J. Trump’s decisive victory in New Hampshire and no strong runner-up among a pack of also-rans, the Republican race barreled into South Carolina on Wednesday shadowed by a question: whether any alternative candidate can gain enough support to threaten Mr. Trump’s drive to the nomination.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, the second-place finisher in New Hampshire with less than half the support of Mr. Trump, arrives in this more conservative Southern state where he has little staff or support. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, resuming an effort here to enlist the Christian right, the key to his victory in Iowa, faces a playing field where evangelical voters are far less monolithic. And former Gov. Jeb Bush, buoyed by outperforming his Florida rival Senator Marco Rubio, has a chance to open more daylight — but it is unclear if it will be enough to inspire establishment-leaning Republicans to coalesce behind him.

On the Democratic side, Senator Bernie Sanders’s idealistic message, which inspired a decisive victory in New Hampshire over Hillary Clinton, faces a sharp test in South Carolina, where Democrats are more moderate and demographically diverse.

Mr. Trump is quite likely to face a kind of scrutiny here he has so far avoided: The only Republican candidate who does not favor increased military spending, he must woo a state with eight bases and 58,000 military retirees. His Vietnam War draft deferments may also be an issue.

While Mr. Trump has led in every poll in South Carolina since July, Mr. Bush has invested substantial resources here. His aides say 1,000 volunteers have knocked on doors at more than 50,000 homes. His brother, former President George W. Bush, who is expected to campaign alongside him here, appeared in an ad in South Carolina during the Super Bowl, declaring, “Jeb Bush is a leader who will keep our country safe.”

“The commander-in-chief question is going to be a big one,” said Jim Dyke, a senior adviser to Mr. Bush here. “If you look at exit polls from 2008 and 2012, in both elections about 25 percent identified as active military or had served in the military.”

Maybe Jebbie will pull out the Barbara Bush "big guns" to rally the rubes in South Carolina. You want a "disaster for the Republican Party"? Nominate Jeb for a third Bush term. It's sickening.

Donald Trump in the Driver's Seat on Way to Presidential Nomination

From Fred Barnes, at the Weekly Standard:

Donald Trump got everything he wanted in New Hampshire primary—and a whole lot more. He's not only a stronger frontrunner in the Republican race than ever; he's now in the driver's seat on the road to the presidential nomination.

Trump is dominant. Here are a few examples:

* Every Republican candidate who finished first and second in Iowa and New Hampshire has won the presidential nomination. Having done so, Trump is now in a class with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney. John McCain was a partial exception in 2000, having basically skipped Iowa and then won in New Hampshire. And it doesn't matter where the first and second place finishes occurred. Reagan was second in Iowa in 1980, then won New Hampshire. Dole won Iowa in 1996 and settled for second to Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire.

* That New Hampshire failed to force all the marginal candidates out of the race is a boon for Trump. There's still no single "establishment" candidate to oppose him. There are three, maybe four, and they're fighting each other, not Trump. This is important. If Jeb Bush is still running when the Florida primary occurs on March 15, he'll split the establishment vote with Marco Rubio. And Trump will win Florida. A similar situation will exist in Ohio if Kasich, the state's governor, hangs around. Kasich and Rubio and maybe Bush will form a circular firing squad. Should Trump win both states, the race is over.

* Trump was zinged after Iowa because his vote was less than polls had forecast. But in New Hampshire, the opposite happened. The RealClear average of New Hampshire polls pegged Trump at 29.5 percent. He got better than 34 percent of the actual vote.

* There were suspicions Trump's percentage would be significantly less than previous winners in New Hampshire. It was in some cases, mostly campaigns with fewer top tier candidates than this year. Trump slightly trailed Bush (38 percent) in 1988 and McCain in 2000 (37). But he beat Buchanan (27) in 1996. No embarrassment here.

* The Trump magic appears to be spreading to states with upcoming primaries...

Still more.

I love that Reagan comparison, second in Iowa, and first in New Hampshire. I'd be trumpeted that historical vignette.

Chris Christie Missed the Cut for GOP Debate in South Carolina Saturday (VIDEO)

Background at Politico, "Kasich, Christie and Fiorina need strong N.H. finishes to make CBS debate."

At the Newark Star-Ledger, "Christie's presidential bid is over, political pros say":

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie is still waiting to exhale, but Republican experts are saying the New Jersey governor is all but certain to end his presidential campaign in New Jersey sometime Wednesday.

"We're going to go home to New Jersey tomorrow and take a deep breath," Christie told supporters in Nashua, N.H., late Tuesday evening after the New Hampshire presidential primary.

The goal, Christie said, is to "see what the final results are tonight — 'cause that matters — whether we're sixth or fifth."

A sixth-place finish would mean Christie wouldn't qualify for the ninth GOP debate, scheduled for Saturday in South Carolina under criteria for admission CBS released late Tuesday. He needed to be in the top five in New Hampshire...

More.

Fiorina won't make it either. And she's gonna whine about sexist treatment by CBS. (Ben Carson won't make it either. These dum-dums need to drop out, sheesh.)

Also at Memeorandum.

The Hillary Clinton Campaign Implosion

At the New York Times, "It's Clinton Déjà Vu — New Hampshire Brings Snow and Rumors of Campaign Implosion":

Periods of intense hand-wringing and recrimination always occur in Clintonworld around the New Hampshire primaries, if history is any guide — and what is Clinton history, if not utterly repetitive?

These brawls traditionally follow difficult results in Iowa. In 1992, the native Hawkeye Tom Harkin beat Bill Clinton in the year’s first caucuses. Barack Obama beat Hillary in 2008 (as did John Edwards, who finished second). And last week, Bernie Sanders essentially tied the former secretary of state, setting up the latest Clinton bloodbath-in-waiting. Hillary is down big in the New Hampshire polls. Her nervous staff and extended community of sycophants, hangers-on and self-professed “confidantes” keep unburdening themselves in the press — while being granted anonymity in exchange for their self-aggrandizing candor.

We’ve been here before. This is how it all rolls in the Clinton precincts of Blue America. The situation is so familiar to be its own Democratic Party cliché, like nominating unelectable liberals in the 1980s or engaging in nasty platform fights in the 1990s.

Say this about the Clintons, for better or worse: They are predictable. Thrush and Karni’s New Hampshire pre-autopsy contained all the paint-by-number refrains of Clinton crackups past:

· The term “staff shake-up” would need to appear in the story’s headline (or, at least, the lede).

· Also, somewhere, the phrase “lack of trust” or “mutual suspicion.”

· The story would have to include a nod to the trusted old Clinton hands who were selflessly offering themselves up as potential campaign saviors.

· Embedded in the article would be the clear implication that all of this could have been avoided if only Mark Penn, Clinton’s 2008 strategist, were more involved.

· The story would also inevitably include at least one blind quote from a former Obama campaign aide who knows how to do things better.

· The story would have to offer up for sacrifice at least one scapegoat, whose job was allegedly in peril.

· Bonus points if said scapegoat hails from Obama’s campaigns (watch your back, Joel Benenson).

So, yes, this latest chapter in the Clintons’ book of Supposed Looming Implosions, 2016 edition, contains all the predictable elements...

More.

It is repetitive, for sure. I remember this movie from 2008. I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of a Bernie Sanders nomination, but it's not far-fetched at this point.

Also, at Politico, "How Much Trouble Is Hillary Clinton In?"

(Via Memeorandum.)

This Maggie Haberman Piece on Donald Trump's New Hampshire Win and Resurgent Campaign is Outstanding

I read it on my iPhone and tweeted. It's really good.

Backers Stayed With Donald Trump As He Regained His Bearings, via @MaggieNYT https://t.co/2heJJNljGr

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 10, 2016

Hillary Clinton Trails Bernie Sanders by 10 Points in Latest Monmouth University Poll (VIDEO)

The poll that matters is tomorrow. Hopefully, Team Clinton doesn't pull any dirty tricks.

At Monmouth, "NEW HAMPSHIRE: TRUMP, SANDERS HOLD LEADS":

Bernie Sanders currently holds a 52% to 42% lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary. This is a slightly tighter contest than the 53% to 39% lead Sanders held in Monmouth’s January poll. Now that it is effectively a two person race – despite the fact that 28 names appear on Tuesday’s ballot – since Martin O’Malley dropped out of the race, the number of likely voters who do not lean toward any candidate has gone up to 6% from 2% last month.

Fully 6-in-10 (60%) likely Democratic primary voters say that they are completely decided on their candidate choice. Clinton (68%) supporters are slightly more likely than Sanders backers (60%) to say their vote is locked in. These results indicate a slight solidification over the 52% who were completely decided last month. Another 23% of Democrats have a strong preference but are still open to considering other candidates. Fewer than 1-in-5 either have only a slight preference (7%) or are really undecided (10%).

“Sanders is sitting in the driver’s seat heading into the last few days before New Hampshire voters head to the polls,” said Murray.

Sanders supporters and undecided voters were asked about the possibility of them actually voting for Clinton on Tuesday. In addition to the 42% support she already receives, another 13% of voters say they are at least somewhat likely to mark their ballots for Clinton when they go to the polls, while 35% say they are not at all likely to do so. Among Clinton supporters and undecided voters, Sanders could potentially add 15% to his current 52% support, while just 25% say they definitely would not consider voting for him on Tuesday...

Still more.

Bill Clinton Unloads on Bernie Sanders, Condemns 'Dishonest' Attacks Against Hillary (VIDEO)

Following-up from previously, "Bernie Sanders Condemns 'Bernie Bros' (VIDEO)."

Watch, at CNN, "Bill Clinton slams Bernie Sanders' supporters."

And at the New York Times, "Bill Clinton Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders":

MILFORD, N.H. — Bill Clinton uncorked an extended attack on Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday, harshly criticizing Mr. Sanders and his supporters for what he described as inaccurate and “sexist” attacks on Hillary Clinton.

“When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” Mr. Clinton said, deriding Mr. Sanders’s oft-mentioned call for a political revolution.

The former president, addressing a few hundred supporters at a junior high school here, portrayed his wife’s opponent for the Democratic nomination as hypocritical, “hermetically sealed” and dishonest.

He even likened an incident last year, in which Sanders staffers obtained access to Clinton campaign voter data, to stealing a car with the keys in the ignition.

Mr. Clinton discussed the race for nearly 50 minutes, and his comments took on a harder edge the longer he spoke. What began as a testimonial to Mrs. Clinton’s leadership and a statesmanlike lecture on her approach to issues evolved into an angrier recitation of grievances against Mr. Sanders and his fervent supporters.

“ ‘Anybody that doesn’t agree with me is a tool of the establishment,’ ” Mr. Clinton said, mocking what he described as the central critique of Mrs. Clinton by Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Clinton’s comments represented an escalation in the language that he and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign have used to attack Mr. Sanders, who has maintained a sizable advantage in the polls here. Mr. Clinton made headlines in 2008 for fiercely defending his wife, and leveling tough attacks on Senator Barack Obama, but he has been largely restrained so far in this campaign.

His heated remarks here reflected the frustration the Clintons felt two days before the primary in a state that has rewarded them in the past, but that appears ready to hand Mr. Sanders a decisive victory. Mr. Clinton seemed especially irritated that New Hampshire, after lifting his 1992 bid for the Democratic nomination and handing her a comeback win in 2008, would now abandon his wife.

Still more.

The Clintons are desperate, although that's not good news for Bernie. The establishment media's in the tank for Hillary. The combined axis will attempt to destroy the Vermont democrat socialist.

Bernie Sanders Condemns 'Bernie Bros' (VIDEO)

At Politico, "Sanders rallies take a darker turn":

The Vermont senator's hardcore supporters have turned up the vitriol against Clinton.

DURHAM, N.H. — The boos are getting louder. The chants are getting more personal. The shouts from the crowd are getting more frequent.

Top Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton have noticed the disdain that some of Bernie Sanders’ most hardcore backers have toward her, and are beginning to worry about what it’s going to take to bring them into the fold in November, when they assume Clinton will be the party nominee.

Some of Clinton’s most prominent supporters and fundraisers were unsettled by chants of ‘she’s a liar’ by Sanders supporters Monday at his caucus night rally in Des Moines and the loud booing that ensued when Clinton was shown on the large screens at the front of the room – a reaction that appeared to prompt the nervous Sanders staff into turning off the televisions.

“It’s a concern, and a lot of it depends on how Hillary reacts during the [primary] contest and after the contest. She can go after Bernie, but she has to go after him respectfully and acknowledge all the time how he brought these issues to the front-burner. She’s gotta keep doing that: ‘We owe a debt of gratitude for bringing these topics to the forefront,’” said former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a staunch, longtime Clinton backer. “It’s a concern, but only if we let it become a concern."

In New Hampshire — likely to be a swing state in November — Sanders’ energetic rallies have been marked by booing when he mentions Clinton, and wild cheers when he lists the issues where she is out of step with progressives. The Vermont senator’s supporters have grown so familiar with his stump speech that some respond even before he’s made his point.

On Tuesday in Claremont — near the Vermont border — Sanders started the portion of his speech that rails against the bank Goldman Sachs, but was barely able to get the name of the financial institution out of his mouth before one man yelled, “Hillary goes there!” and others around him erupted in cheers.

Clinton’s camp has taken to publicly warning the Sanders’ campaign about his legions of online backers whose social media postings have caught the eye of both campaigns as sometimes overly and inappropriately aggressive.

“It can be nasty. It can be vitriolic,” said Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon at a breakfast briefing Thursday, referring to a contingent of Sanders supporters who have been termed ‘Bernie Bros.’ “[I] think that the Sanders campaign needs to beware the extent to which, in an effort to mobilize and galvanize their supporters, they start to let the mentality or the crudeness seep into their own words and criticisms that they hurl at Secretary Clinton.”

More.

Also at BuzzFeed, "Sanders to the Bernie Bros: “We Don’t Want That Crap”."

Polls Show Donald Trump Holding Double-Digit Lead in New Hampshire (VIDEO)

Following-up from yesterday, "Donald Trump Moves to 22-Point Lead Over Marco Rubio in New Hampshire Tracking Poll."

Here's the last entry in the UMass Lowell New Hampshire tracking poll, "Trump-34 Rubio-13 Cruz-13 Kasich-10 Bush-10... #NHPrimary LVs..."

And watch, at CBS News This Morning:



I'm making no predictions. Too many voters are undecided up there, and I thought enthusiasm would push Trump over the line in the Hawkeye State. No can do, it turns out.

So, we'll see about New Hampshire tomorrow. We'll see.

Marco Rubio's Going to Keep Saying 'Barack Obama Knows Exactly What He's Doing...' (VIDEO)

Rubio's hammering this message, doubling- and tripling-down despite the harsh reaction he's gotten from all quarters.

Watch, at ABC News, "Marco Rubio Faces Fallout from GOP Debate."

Spokeswoman Karen Finney Won't Disavow Misogynist Comments by Hillary Clinton Surrogates Albright, Steinem (VIDEO)

Watch, via Free Beacon, "Clinton Spokeswoman Won't Disavow Misogynist Remarks by Steinem, Albright."

And ICYMI, "Gloria Steinem Apologized for Comments She Made About Young Women on 'Real Time with Bill Maher' (VIDEO)."